Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anger Room


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Anger Room

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an obvious attempt at advertising with little other justification for its existence. Should have been speedily deleted when created. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is, I think, one of the small number of articles created as an obvious attempt at advertising which is actually notable. The article cites multiple reliable sources, all of which contain substantial discussion of the topic, and so satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. I can't access the Bloomberg source, but I can't see any WP:ORGIND issues. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. the reverences ae either minor or thesort of human interest about unsusual events. This isn't as unsusual as it sounds, actually, andusing the genetal name for a particular business is undue promotionalism .  DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: a directory listing for a nn company. Fails WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - This has generated two articles in New York Times, and one in Le Monde. The further reading section I just added shows plenty of independent coverage. Daask (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm a bit concerned that we're seeing this, this, this, and this as trivial coverage. I'm not convinced that the content needs to be in this particular page; it could be a page about the phenomenon, with a section covering this particular instance; and it could possibly use a rename to addrss the "title is promotional" concern brought up by DGG; but this meets GNG quite comfortably, in my book. Vanamonde (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, according to WP:CORPDEPTH. I would add though, that, listing a bunch of sources at the bottom of the article does not help making the article itself better. Those sources can be used, with care, in the article, thereby expanding it and making it more interesting. That work will also help the AFD process. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per all keep comments, but this seriously needs more information. I'm not opposed to a second nomination in one to two months if this isn't "revamped" because it does seem somewhat like advertising at the moment. If the NYT article is mentioned, that'll certainly help with credibility. Redditaddict69 14:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.